When reporting about firearm usage, this blog proposes the following rule:I'm not sure I ever gave liberal journalists the benefit of the doubt when reporting that a common deer hunting rifle is a "sniper's rifle", a semi-automatic sporter rifle like an AR-15 a "military style assault weapon", or a $600 Glock a "Saturday Night Special", not to mention the endless confusion they have over bullets, shells, casings, clips and magazines. True, they really are that ignorant, but it is a form of deliberate ignorance, because they maintain because ignorance allows them to continue to present things in the worst possible terminology.
Henceforth, there is no benefit of the doubt for inaccurate reporting about firearms. It is presumed mala fides.If you’re a paid journalist, act like one and square your facts away before presenting them. Otherwise, I’m going to add you to my list of Godless Commie Sodomites who merit ignoring.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Smitty at The Other McCain, announces a new policy with regard to journalists who routinely get their facts wrong regarding firearms: New Rule On Firearms Reporting: No Benefit Of The Doubt For Inaccuracy